Why there is only Clear Read-Only Flag option?
-
While NPP provides option to clear read-only flag of file why it is not providing reversal operation?
It is indisputably the natural usage way:
- Open read-only protected file.
- Remove read-only flag.
- Make changes.
- Set read-only flag.
- Close the file.
Am I missing something? 🤔
-
Yes, is missing/inconsistent but the solution is quite easy.
Make a run entry and save it with a meaningful name.
To call:cmd /C attrib +R "$(FULL_CURRENT_PATH)" -
I know the way how to work with read-only file attribute. It is barren when it is implemented in half-way manner. đź‘Ž
-
It is barren when it is implemented in half-way manner.
So you are using free software and then going to complain about it?
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Actually you should be so ashamed that you go and “fix” it yourself and then submit that fix to the project.
Otherwise you should probably not complain, just be thankful that you get to use the software at all. -
@Alan-Kilborn said in Why there is only Clear Read-Only Flag option?:
It is barren when it is implemented in half-way manner.
…NPP is not that free as you are pointing out. It is donateware 🤑 so it is not just pure freeware.
Furthermore after your post I started to think about that fix although I am not aware of C++. This change has to be so trivial that can be implemented even in uknown language with ease.
-
@Uzivatel919 said in Why there is only Clear Read-Only Flag option?:
NPP is not that free as you are pointing out. It is donateware 🤑 so it is not just pure freeware.
Not strictly sure of the definitions but donating is definitely optional, so I’d say it is really the same. BTW, I choose to donate my time to answer questions rather than contribute $.
Furthermore after your post I started to think about that fix although I am not aware of C++.
If I have inspired you to contribute your time, then you have donated your share. :-)
This change has to be so trivial that can be implemented even in unknown language with ease.
It always blows my mind when people say this. The way I think about it is if an “easy” feature is missing, maybe it truly isn’t so easy to implement. I’ve duginto the source code on several projects, thinking I could tackle adding a simple feature, and I’ve backed away after realizing how incredibly hard it would be. Software is hard.
-
Not strictly sure of the definitions but donating is definitely optional, so I’d say it is really the same. BTW, I choose to donate my time to answer questions rather than contribute $.
It is not about definitions. If it is donateware one can donate under many conditions as result of free will. When it is pure freeware you never can pay off for product you get so you are forced to be debtor.
If I have inspired you to contribute your time, then you have donated your share. :-)
It always blows my mind when people say this. The way I think about it is if an “easy” feature is missing, maybe it truly isn’t so easy to implement. I’ve duginto the source code on several projects, thinking I could tackle adding a simple feature, and I’ve backed away after realizing how incredibly hard it would be. Software is hard.
There is already well defined Windows API for this. In NPP should be this method used. I suppose 2 changes:
- New title like “Switch read-only attribute”.
- Alter existing clearing method so it will be reverting actual read-only state.
-
Maybe this hasn’t been said explicitly enough for you: There is nothing we can do in the forum to implement this.
At this point, either make a new feature request in the official issue-tracking, as described in this FAQ, and wait for the possibility that someone is able to prioritize the work on it, and get it debugged and submitted and integrated; or do the work yourself, then submit your own pull request to the software repo, and wait for it to be accepted and integrated into a future release. That’s the way open source software works. Continuing to fight with Alan and Eko in the forum won’t do anyone any good (and will just serve to annoy everyone else reading this topic).
-
@PeterJones said in Why there is only Clear Read-Only Flag option?:
Maybe this hasn’t been said explicitly enough for you: There is nothing we can do in the forum to implement this.
At this point, either make a new feature request in the official issue-tracking, as described in this FAQ, and wait for the possibility that someone is able to prioritize the work on it, and get it debugged and submitted and integrated; or do the work yourself, then submit your own pull request to the software repo, and wait for it to be accepted and integrated into a future release. That’s the way open source software works. Continuing to fight with Alan and Eko in the forum won’t do anyone any good (and will just serve to annoy everyone else reading this topic).
Ok. 👌🏻
-
It is customary, if you start a discussion here, and then turn it into a real issue on github, that you return here and provide a link to your issue. Also nice to point the github issue back here.
This time I will do the pointer-to-github for you: https://github.com/notepad-plus-plus/notepad-plus-plus/issues/7841
-
It is customary, if you start a discussion here, and then turn it into a real issue on github, that you return here and …
Ok. 👌🏻
